How to choose between creation and evolution.

[Belk]

God would have a purpose for creating anything including cells. He wouldn't tarry waiting for those cells to evolve into the organism he created them for in the first place.

We are all related but only in the sense that God uses the same basic material and processes for most everything. I'm building a dresser in my shop right now, using the same materials and tools that I use to build my bird feeders, but 'evolution' isn't involved. In fact I usually discard things that are outdated or worn out. I don't add new parts to them to try to bring them up to date. I just build a new one.

I always enjoy when people claim to know what actions an immortal, all knowing, infinite being would take. So almighty prophet OldWiseGuy, what is Gods view on the dodgers?

 

[Astrophile]

I don't know why God did it that way. But but it is your interpretation of the design that is faulty. But that is the way of man. He is faulty in his understanding because he is limited.

If you don't know why God made similar DNA for chimpanzees, gorillas and humans, and similar DNA for whales and hippopotamuses, how do you know that the interpretation of these similarities as a result of descent from common ancestors is faulty?

Saying

all things have DNA and all things have some similarities because God used the same building blocks to create all life.

is no better than saying 'The sky is blue because God made it that way'. One can't make any predictions from your statement; God could have used the same DNA to create octopuses, mackerel, brachiopods and barnacles, or entirely different DNA to create swans and geese. The interpretation that similarities in DNA are the results of descent from common ancestors, on the other hand, allows scientists to make testable predictions about biological relationships.

 

[rjs330]

It means nothing of the kind. What it means is the existence of God can never be disproven by science.

Only if you assume that functionality cannot come about by natural causes. Which is the thing you are trying to prove. Tsk. And you are only trying to prove it because you don't realize that natural causes can be as much of a vehicle for divine telos as direct divine intervention.

Science also cannot prove there is a God. And science cannot prove that functionality and purpose comes by natural causes. They can assume so. But all observable data states for everything that has purpose and function was designed.

And direct divine intervention IS the starting point of all natural cause. Creationists do not deny that nature functions on its own. Rivers flow on their own without direct intervention by God. Snow falls not by direct intervention of God. BUT God created the process and set the process in place for that to happen.

Could God have created life by evolution and set the evolutionary process in place for all thing to evolve from one thing? Of course he could have. BUT he did not. He created everything unique. He created the birds separately from the creatures in the ocean and he did it the same day.

 

[rjs330]

If you don't know why God made similar DNA for chimpanzees, gorillas and humans, and similar DNA for whales and hippopotamuses, how do you know that the interpretation of these similarities as a result of descent from common ancestors is faulty?

Saying is no better than saying 'The sky is blue because God made it that way'. One can't make any predictions from your statement; God could have used the same DNA to create octopuses, mackerel, brachiopods and barnacles, or entirely different DNA to create swans and geese. The interpretation that similarities in DNA are the results of descent from common ancestors, on the other hand, allows scientists to make testable predictions about biological relationships.

Because of two reasons. God told us that he created all things differently. Secondly all things ARE different. DNA shows us the differences as much as it shows similarity. Rhino DNA is different from chimp DNA. And DNA is how we know what type of creature is what (besides just looking at it of course.) Gid DIDNT use the same DNA for all things. He used different DNA. That's why all things are different.

Where did DNA come from? It's the basis for all things and what things do and how things function and what things are. Its impossible for it to have come from nothing. It has purpose and it has function. It has to be designed.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It's interesting that you can fully believe in evidence of human contrivance, but reject Godly contrivance. Design IS present in nature and since the Bible tells us God created it makes sense.

"the bible says it, that settles it"

Since we observe functuonality and purpose is aways designed it is only logical to apply it to life.

where do you observe "purpose"?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Of course the mountains were formed. No one said they weren't.

Except you, when you said that they were designed by a designer, instead.

"formed by natural forces" and "designed by a designer", aren't the same thing. In fact, they are the exact opposite.

The one who forms the mountains, creates the wind, makes known his thoughts to humankind, makes the morning darkness, and moves over the heights of the earth— the Lord, the God of heavenly forces is his name! - Amos 4:13 Bible Gateway passage: Amos 4:13 - Common English Bible

Uhu, uhu.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It's an interpretation of what you see.

It. Is. Not.

The pattern factually exists.
This is not an interpretation, it is not an assumption, it is not a belief.
It is a fact. An observable, verifiable, objective fact.

All you see is patterns or all you see is similarities and you interpret them to mean evolution.

No. Again, it is a factual nested hierarchy and it factually consists of DNA matches. Not similarities or vague resemblances. Factual matches in DNA. And when mapped out, it forms a nested hierarchical tree. Factually.

We interpret them as evidence that God created this world and we see that as evidence that supports what the Bible says happened.

Which is just a claim that comes from your a priori religious beliefs.
You don't "interpret" the evidence. It doesn't matter AT ALL how the evidence looks. No matter the build up of life, you'ld say it was designed by this god of yours, period.

Today you're saying nested hierarchies are evidence of design.
If tomorrow, somehow nested hierarchies are debunked, then your beliefs wouldn't change at all.

Evolution theory however, would be considered falsified.

Don't pretend as if you care about how the evidence looks.

 

[DogmaHunter]

We've already been through this Speed. God said it specifically in Exodus. I merely quote what he says. It's like quoting anyone else. If we have the quote it's a quote. It's what the person said. And God said it .

Actually, it's what the author of said quote said god said.
Or it's what the author of the quote was quoting from yet another person who claimed that that is what this god said.

You are quoting humans, not god.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Then science is wrong. If science says something different then science is wrong.

Boom! There you have it folks.

If science contradicts his religious beliefs, then science is necessarily wrong.

Congratz rjs330. You just made yourself completely irrelevant in this discussion.
That right there is black on white evidence, proof even, of what I said in my previous posts: you don't care about the evidence or the science one bit. You only care about clinging to your religious beliefs.

When you are talking to a person who says in advance that he'll reject anything out of hand at face value which contradicts his religious beliefs..... Then you know that discussion is an exercise in futility. This is willful ignorance squared.

But hey, at least you are honest about it....
So I guess you got that going for you.

So what if creation is unfalsifiable?

Indeed, "so what".
To a person who doesn't care about what is true, but who only cares about upholding his religious beliefs, such things are unimportant.

 

[Speedwell]

Actually, it's what the author of said quote said god said.
Or it's what the author of the quote was quoting from yet another person who claimed that that is what this god said.

You are quoting humans, not god.

The amusing thing is that the "quote' he is talking about, Exodus 20:11, does not even pretend to be a quote of God's words.

 

[tas8831]

The creation is evidence of the creator.

LOL!

Question begging is not a good way to argue against science.

 

[tas8831]

Purposeful, supernatural creation is so much easier to believe.

For those that admittedly do not understand evolution and are religious, sure.

 

[tas8831]

Did you read my post #1001? It concerns the molecular structure of tissues. I posted it in response to a "cell biologist" who, citing his credentials, said that tissues aren't made of molecules.

Oh the GOADING!!!

I see that the Christian employs the tired tactics of creationists of all stripes - misrepresentation.

Tissues are made of CELLS - I even provided the definition for you.

The link you copy-pasted was about the EXTRACELLULAR MATRIX.

I understand almost nothing in that article, but I do understand that changes in the molecular structure is needed to affect certain specialized tissues.

LOL!

Wow - you admit you understand nothing in the article YOU linked and copy-pasted, but nonetheless think you 'GOTCHA'd' me.

Sorry - you are wrong.

I even EXPLAINED how you were wrong, but the creationist simply cannot admit error - even when admitting ignorance of the subject!

Incredible...

My main point is that there is no way I'm going to study and understand evolution.

And yet you feel qualified to dismiss it. How... creationist of you.

There's just way too much 'information' and much of it held together by conjecture.

How do you know? You just admitted that you are not going to study and understand evolution - which means that you do NOT understand evolution now.

Inconsistency of 'logic' much?

 

[xianghua]

Because our previous experience tells us that electric motors are manufactured--thus designed--and flagella are not.

previous experience also tell as that a genome is a product of human design. so according to this we need to conclude design when we see a genome.

 

[Speedwell]

previous experience also tell as that a genome is a product of human design. so according to this we need to conclude design when we see a genome.

That example was too difficult for you. Let me try to make it clearer: If we saw an electric motor on the moon we would provisionally conclude that it was designed pending closer examination, because all of the electric motors of our previous experience were manufactured and thus designed. We could not definitively conclude that it was designed until we had examined it closely to be sure that it was manufactured.

Got it?

Now, tell us why we should believe that all the genomes in our experience were designed by humans.

 

[xianghua]

The difference is, as I said, that the items in question look very similar to items on Earth.

the flagellum also look like an electric motor. so what?

and what if it will be your first time that you see an eletric motor? you cant conclude design then because you have no information about that object?

 

[Speedwell]

the flagellum also look like an electric motor. so what?

and what if it will be your first time that you see an eletric motor? you cant conclude design then because you have no information about that object?

That's right. There are only two possibilities:

1. I can conclude that the object was designed because I find evidence of manufacture.

2. I can't tell whether the object was designed or not because I can't find evidence of manufacture.

If I find no evidence of manufacture then I can't say that the object was designed. It might have been, but I can't tell.

That is good enough for me, but then--unlike you--I haven't got a political agenda which requires that I demonstrate the presence of design in unmanufactured objects.

 

[xianghua]

Moderators, please close this thread. Thanks.

why? its just get interesting.

 

[pitabread]

the flagellum also look like an electric motor.

Except it doesn't given that it's made out of completely different materials.

 

[xianghua]

Why did God use the same building blocks to create all life?

why both cars and trucks made of steal and plastic?